OF MARRYING AETER DIVORCE IN CASE OF ADULTERY.
It is confessed by all that adultery is a just and sufficient cause of a divorce betwixt married persons.
This divorce, say some, consists in a dissolution " vinculi matri- monialis," and so removes the marriage relation as that the inno- cent person divorcing or procuring the divorce is at liberty to marry again.
Others say that it is only a separation " a mensa et thoro," and that on this account it doth not nor ought to dissolve the marriage relation.
I am of the judgment of the former; for, —
First, This divorce " a mensa et thoro" only is no true divorce, but a mere fiction of a divorce, of no use in this case, nor lawful to be made use of, neither by the law of nature nor the law of God ; for, —
1. It is, as stated, but a late invention, of no use in the world, nor known in more ancient times: for those of the Roman church who assert it do grant that divorces by the law of nature were " a vin- culo," and that so they were also under the old testament; and this fiction they would impose on the grace and state of the gospel, which yet makes indeed no alteration in moral relations and duties, but only directs their performance.
2. It is deduced from a fiction,— namely, that marriage among Christians is a sacrament of that signification as renders it indissolv- able ; and therefore they would have it to take place only amongst believers, the rest of mankind being left to their natural right and privilege. But this is a fiction, and as such in sundry cases they make use of it.
Secondly, A divorce perpetual "a mensa et thoro" only is no way useful to mankind, but hurtful and noxious; for, —
1. It would constitute a new condition or state of life, wherein it is not possible that a man should either have a wife, or not have a wife lawfully, in one of which estates yet really every man capable of the state of wedlock is and must be, whether he will or no; for a man may, as things may be circumstantiated, be absolutely bound in
OF MARRYING AFTER DIVORCE IN CASE OF ADULTERY. 255
conscience not to receive her again who was justly repudiated for adultery, nor can he take another on this divorce. But into this estate God calls no man.
2, It may, and probably will, cast a man under a necessity of sin- ning : for suppose he hath not the gift of continency, it is the ex- press will of God that he should marry for his relief; yet on this supposition, he sins if he does so, and in that he sins if he doth not so.
Thirdly, It is unlawful; for if the bond of marriage abide, the relation still continues. This relation is the foundation of all mutual duties; and whilst all that continues, none can dispense with or prohibit from the performance of those duties. If a woman do con- tinue in the relation of a wife to a man, she may claim the duties of marriage from him. Separation there may be by consent for a sea- son, or upon other occasions, that may hinder the actual discharge of conjugal duties; but to make an obligation unto such duties void, whilst the relation doth continue, is against the law of nature and the law of God. This divorce, therefore, supposing the relation of man and wife between any, and no mutual duty thence to arise, is unlawful.
Fourthly, The light of nature never directed to this kind of di- vorce. Marriage is an ordinance of the law of nature; but in the light and reason thereof there is no intimation of any such practice. It still directed that they who might justly put away their wives might marry others. Hence some, as the ancient Grecians, and the Romans afterward, allowed the husband to kill the adulteress. This among the Romans was changed " lege Julia," but the offence [was] still made capital. In the room hereof, afterward, divorce took place purposely to give the innocent person liberty of marriage. So that this kind of divorce is but a fiction.
The first opinion, therefore, is according to truth; for, —
First, That which dissolves the form of marriage and destroys all the forms of marriage doth dissolve the bond of marriage; for take away the form and end of any moral relation, and the re- lation itself ceaseth. But this is done by adultery, and a divorce ensuing thereon. For the form of marriage consisteth in this, that two become " one flesh," Gen. ii. 24; Matt. xix. 6; — but this is dis- solved by adultery; for the adulteress becometh one flesh with the adulterer, 1 Cor. vi. 16, and no longer one flesh in individual so- ciety with her husband, and so it absolutely breaks the bond or cove- nant of marriage. And how can men contend that is a bond which is a])solutely broken, or fancy a "vinculum" that doth not bind? and that it absolutely destroys all the forms of marriage will be granted. It therefore dissolves the bond of marriage itself.
256 OF MARRYING AFTER DIVORCE IN CASE OF ADULTERY.